[HN Gopher] Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google ma... ___________________________________________________________________ Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti- competitive demands Author : 1cvmask Score : 350 points Date : 2021-04-26 14:29 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.axios.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com) | CivBase wrote: | Stuff like this is why "general computing" devices should (and | will hopefully) never die. I just plug my laptop into my TV via | HDMI and I can stream video, browse the web, play games, and do | whatever. That solution has served me well for a decade now and I | have zero interest in smart TV software, Roku, Chromecast, Fire | Stick, Apple TV, or any of that crap. | f430 wrote: | "Don't be Evil" - Larry Page | jsnell wrote: | Previous discussion: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942227 | | (But this article seems to have a lot more details) | jonnycomputer wrote: | Google calls the accusation baseless. But I'd bet there would be | documentation if it were true .. | caturopath wrote: | I've never used Roku voice commands. Is it unambiguous that a | command is for music? Or "Stevie Wonder interview" and "Stevie | Wonder Superstition" be interchangeable, with the first going to | a Youtube vid and the second playing in Pandora? | calderwoodra wrote: | Either the journalist has interpreted Roku's claims incorrectly, | or Roku is spreading falsehoods. | | It's a very common practice for streaming services to make crazy | demands about the devices they're on. | | Roku[1], Google TV[2] and Firesticks[3] all have Netflix buttons | on the remote not because they wanted them there, but because | Netflix forces them to with the threat that they will blacklist | their device. | | And inevitably, all devices comply because they know they won't | be able to sell the product without Netflix support. | | [1] | https://cigars.roku.com/v1/http%3A%2F%2Fimage.roku.com%2Fw%2... | | [2] https://external- | preview.redd.it/9itjeCYci2NPP7Vxr9onH_DFv7E... | | [3] | https://i.gadgets360cdn.com/large/amazon_fire_tv_stick_alexa... | stale2002 wrote: | > And inevitably, all devices comply because they know they | won't be able to sell the product without Netflix support. | | That sounds pretty anti-competitive to me. So that would not be | a "falsehood". Just because lots of companies are making anti- | competitive demands, does not invalidate the point. | rOOb85 wrote: | My latest gen firetv stick 4k has no Netflix button(or any app | buttons) | | https://static.slickdealscdn.com/attachment/2/5/1/6/8/8/6/78... | inetknght wrote: | > _It 's a very common practice for streaming services to make | crazy demands about the devices they're on_ | | That doesn't make it any less anti-competitive | Spivak wrote: | If it was "you must have a Netflix button and no others" I | could see the argument but the demand for a particular user | experience isn't anticompetitive automatically. | | Company with leverage others might not have using that | leverage isn't something we vilify in general. | bogwog wrote: | If you're willfully ignorant of the situation, then sure. | Otherwise, using leverage to favor your own product over | competitors despite user preference is textbook anti- | competitive behavior, almost comically so: Not only does it | unfairly disadvantage competitors, but it also robs | consumers of choice (by ignoring their preferences). | | I would love to see one of the meetings that lead to | absurdly unethical and borderline/outright illegal | decisions like this; did anyone bother to bring it up? Did | the person that brought it up get the silent treatment? | Were they no longer invited to lunch? Does everyone just | understand that those topics are off limits? Or do these | people seriously not care because they know they can get | away with it? | minhazm wrote: | It's like Microsoft sponsoring the NFL and so they have | to use Surface tablets. That means they don't have Apple, | Samsung, Lenovo, and other competitors tablets. Is that | anti-competitive? If so, then every business out there | must be anti-competitive. Buying ads to get yourself on a | higher position in search results, buying ads on TV | during primetime slots, and any behavior that makes you | look better than your competitors would also be anti- | competitive. | rocqua wrote: | Demanding a button on the remote is different from paying | for advertising. | minhazm wrote: | How so? It is the same thing as advertising. Roku is | benefiting greatly from Netflix being on their platform | as well. Netflix could ditch Roku and say they only | support X other devices. But they both need each other | and so they agree to something that makes sense for both | parties. | | Anyway it is pointless, because Roku actually charges | companies to put a button on their remote[1]. They | supposedly charge $1 for the button per customer. | | https://mashable.com/article/roku-button-home-screen- | adverti... | Spivak wrote: | No, it really isn't. Look, I agree with you -- a company | throwing their weight around feels super shitty. But | leveraging your advantages is basically just business. | | Netflix paying Roku to add their button on remotes | wouldn't be anti-competitive in the same way that buying | exclusive ad space isn't. And therefore Netflix realizing | that they bring so much value to the Roku ecosystem that | they can get their button without actually having to pay | is good business. Like I hate it. But it's true. | [deleted] | wmf wrote: | I agree that everybody involved is evil but we're still allowed | to have opinions about that. Roku's evil and Google's evil | don't necessarily cancel out. | hamstergene wrote: | Proving that others are bad too does not mean one is OK and no | change is needed. It just means all are bad, all need to be | changed. | adamsvystun wrote: | I think the difference here is that Netflix does not make the | devices themselves, so they are an equal outside force on the | market of smart tv devices. Google on the other hand is using | it's YouTube product to influence things on the device side, | where they have Chromecast as direct competitor. | Mindwipe wrote: | Thing is Google are so internally disfuntional it seems | unlikely that that's the actual aim here. | | Thi is the same Google that still can't get their own gaming | streaming service working on their own TV OS. And you think | YouTube are trying to attack other manufacturers to boost | sales of a $50 dongle with no margin? | | Tbh I think it's more likely that nobody on the Chromecast | team has ever met anyone from the YouTube team. Many things | at Google would work better if they did. | tyre wrote: | Might the difference here be that Netflix doesn't have a | competing product? | | Google could be incentivized to put onerous requirements on | Roku which result in a worse user experience, price increases, | or additional development time. That would benefit Chromecast. | Mindwipe wrote: | The requirements for Netflix on a set-top box are... | significant. Extremely. | deelowe wrote: | I thought roku gets paid for those buttons to be on the remote. | cosmotic wrote: | One thing is clear: Google either doesn't understand users at all | or they are lying when they say this is for the user. | ipaddr wrote: | Next they will ask to be automatically loaded during startup. | | Get rid of the youtube app. It's low quality videos with ads when | I use roku I use it for a better experience. | etempleton wrote: | HBO Max was delayed in appearing on Roku because of negotiation | breakdowns. In the case HBO it was Roku that seemed to have the | demands. They are looking at revenue anywhere they can, but if | their position weakens look for Google, ATT, and others to simply | forgo working with them. | | I think Roku is in a perilous position in general. They generated | a lot of buzz on Wallstreet with their high user counts. They | also purchased a DSP to get more into the advertising game. | However they are at risk of being disrupted. They do not offer | much that is unique and have largely gained and held market | position by being the cheapest and easiest to use. | | Cheap Android TV devices are starting to compete with them on | price and tv manufacturers have mostly chosen to create and | maintain their own ecosystems. | | Unless they make some big strategic maneuvers I see them slowly | being squeezed out like Tivo. | discardable_dan wrote: | Why is it that my only ad-free TV option is a Raspberry Pi? | rocqua wrote: | I have never seen adds on my LG tv, or atleast never noticed | them. I am at LGs mercy for updates though, so it still isn't | ideal. And yet, with PLEX and a backup hdmi cable, it works | pretty dang well | cdiddy2 wrote: | I use roku simply because its not connected to a big tech | company. Same reason I use spotify. I wonder how many others | there are like me | etempleton wrote: | It is the small advertising companies that deploy the truly | terrifying advertising tracking. | jedimastert wrote: | > Same reason I use spotify | | I think it's pretty safe to call Spotify a big tech company | at this point | panopticon wrote: | It's a weird world where a company that does billions in | annual revenue isn't considered big. | hnra wrote: | I think a lot of people use the phrase "big tech" to | refer to the giants whom use lobbying, monopoly power, | etc. to stay disproportionately big. | rocqua wrote: | Spotify is starting to do this with podcasts. | TheCoelacanth wrote: | It makes sense when you are comparing them to companies | that do hundreds of billions in annual revenue. Big and | small are relative. | asadlionpk wrote: | I am the opposite. Big tech is under scrutiny and are watched | closely for the data they collect. These small companies are | in lawless territory and heavily collect questionable data. | techrat wrote: | The big problem with Spotify is that they're primarily | controlled by the labels with their licensing agreements. All | of the majors also own portions of shares within the service. | | People also don't realise that I heart Radio is Clearchannel | rebranded. The closest thing to an actual independent | streaming service I'd say we have right now is Beatport or | Bandcamp. | | The situation that Spotify finds itself in, along with Roku, | is that they are still at the mercy of who supplies them | their content. Until they diversify and provide exclusive | content of their own that keeps people subscribed (ala | Netflix), they're doomed once labels and studios want to me- | too and spin off their own services. Disney used to primarily | have deals with Netflix, now they've split that off into | Disney+. Netflix is able to maintain because of their | content. I doubt Spotify will. Nor will Roku. | | So even if you have the impression that they're not | 'connected to' a big tech company, they're definitely at the | mercy of if not already somehow owned by. | NationalPark wrote: | And the HBO Smart TV app is still not available natively on LG | televisions, which obviously isn't a big deal to people who | already have a media system set up but is annoying none the | less. All this streaming stuff sure is starting to feel like | the cable television plans I grew up with. | rocqua wrote: | Radarr, sonarr, and plex are a nice escape hatch for | availability. Similarly, an HDMI cable connected to a PC with | a browser is a working fall-back to most missing apps on any | platform. | awa wrote: | Roku has tie up with TV manufacturers like TCL too. That's | where a lot of their growth is coming in. | | Personally, I have switched to Fire-Stick and Chromecast with | Google TV from Roku because the Roku interface hasn't evolved | in the past few years and they are also pushing ads and their | own channels now. | rurp wrote: | I have both a Roku and a Chromecast and the Roku works _much_ | better. The Chromecast used to be fine, but a few years ago | they refactored it in the Home app and now it constantly needs | to be reconnected to the wifi. That would be annoying enough | but the setup process also fails regularly. No other device in | my house has this problem. | latortuga wrote: | I have used: | | - a Roku - the newest "Chromecast with Google TV" - old style | chromecasts - an "smart TV" with Android TV - A "smart TV" | from visio | | The worst by far are the smart TVs. The old chromecast is | next because there's no UI outside my phone, but I always | have my phone so it's not that bad. Next is the Roku and | finally, top marks for the CCGTV. It's super fast and | responsive and I love it. | Severian wrote: | Same with my old school Chromecast audio, it needs to be | rebooted constantly as it too somehow stops connecting to | wifi. I used to use it with a toslink cable and got really | good sound out of it using a DLNA server from my storage. | | Now I just use my TV (as a monitor) optical out since it is | connected via ethernet. I can still use DLNA on it as well to | play my music. | joncp wrote: | > They also purchased a DSP to get more into the advertising | game | | They needed to buy a digital signal processor to do | advertising? That sounds odd. Can you elaborate? | tyoh wrote: | DSP in this case is a demand side platform, it's an ad tech | term. | dyingkneepad wrote: | Well, there are also Roku TVs now. | Cd00d wrote: | I recently bought a TCL TV with a Roku OS. | | I think it's great. It was cheap. I'm a fan of Roku (been | with them since 2008 or so). | | I'm disappointed to see these tiffs with content companies. | Remember the time when every video you wanted to play on your | computer required a different software player? Are these | companies planning on re-doing all that with _hardware_? | | "Oh, I have a Roku for most things, then plug in Apple TV for | Apple+, I use the Fire stick for Prime Video, and the | Chromecast allows me to watch YouTube TV! I just needed a TV | with 17 HDMI ports!" | sircastor wrote: | The reason I picked and stay with Roku is that they aren't | married to a single Big Tech co. I already suffer the lack of a | proper YouTube app on my Echo Show because Amazon and Google | are having a tiff. I don't want to pick an ecosystem and live | exclusively inside of it. | | As it is, I'm already in a mixed household (Me with iOS and my | wife with Android) and it's a pain to deal with the lack of | cross-platform playing together. | npsimons wrote: | > The reason I picked and stay with Roku is that they aren't | married to a single Big Tech co. | | Same. I'm so sick of being locked into one system or another, | having my eyeballs monetized, or getting the shitty version | of an app because it isn't the vendor's platform. I got a | Roku because they're as neutral as one can get, and so far | I'm happy paying for YouTube Premium, Amazon Prime and | Netflix. You tell me I can't run those on my Roku, well fuck | you and your service. | eitally wrote: | I use Roku [for my outdoor projector] simply because it was 1. | cheap, and 2. has the fullest support for various VOD | providers. The delayed launch of HBO Max was a bit irritating, | but they did have Disney+, which at the time was missing from | Samsung's native app store. | | I don't care about YTTV at all, though, becasue I don't want | any live tv, period. | taylodl wrote: | I currently have YouTube TV I access via my Apple TV. The nice | thing about internet cable is how quickly you can switch | providers. If Google or Apple get into a tiff or whatever then I | can switch to Fubo and not miss a beat. Many people have | mentioned Fubo as an alternative and frankly it looks pretty | good. The biggest reason I watch TV is for sports. Fubo and | YouTube TV seem similarly matched in that regard. As consumers we | should all be glad we have choices. | crazypython wrote: | Maybe they could use a FOSS YouTube client like Nvidious. Or even | install a freedom-respecting and open source decentralized | solution such as Odysee (LBRY) or PeerTube, and ask people to | post there. | honksillet wrote: | I guess this is a good a place as any to say that the video | quality on youtubeTV is atrocious. I was shocked when I watch a | live NFL game on the Roku amazon prime app. Also ytTV has just | about double in price in less than 3 years. | | Roku has some issues too. Namely, it autodownloads a new random | app about once a week so Im constant deleting apps from my home | page. | | Lastly, this sounds a lot like, "Comcast Cale users might lose | the ESPN Chanel ...". I'm pretty sick of all these xorporations. | intergalplan wrote: | > Roku has some issues too. Namely, it autodownloads a new | random app about once a week so Im constant deleting apps from | my home page. | | WTF? New random apps about once a week? I've never seen this. | Have multiple Roku boxes and a couple TVs with integrated Roku. | Using them for years. Maybe there's some kind of "suggest new | channels to me" checkbox you've got checked in account | preferences? | marrone12 wrote: | The quality is really bad. Terrible compression with blocky | artifacts and poor black levels. My pirate IPTV service has | significantly better image quality. | rajivjain wrote: | This is why we as users should choose our platforms carefully. | This spat between Roku and Google is ultimately all about $$$ | generated with 'monetizing' our habits and data. Ad infested | platforms like Roku will continually try and push for larger | share of the pie. Whereas, Google will continue pushing for more | data. They both will win. Win at our expense. Not thanks, I would | rather stay with my Apple TV and have a modicum of control over | my privacy, even though it's more expensive piece of hardware to | buy. | Cd00d wrote: | Can you use Prime Video? | rootsudo wrote: | Nothing of value loss, the youtube app on Roku is very glitchy | and the entire ecosystem of Roku is very ad supported and user | hostile. I would expect voice commands within the youtube app to | stay within youtube. | | I am 50/50 on youtube music/youtube, but youtube app includes | music so it's a general hard to decipher request but genereally | if I want to voice search while I'm in youtube, I want it to stay | in youtube. | | I don't understand why people flock to it/use it. | jahlove wrote: | This is about the "Youtube TV" app, not the "Youtube" app. | NeuNeurosis wrote: | I am in no way on Google's side on this but I am taking this with | a grain of salt since I am sure that Roku is quite aware of the | leverage this allegation could bring against Google with the on | going anti-trust suite that is being brought against them. | s3r3nity wrote: | > Roku alleges Google has asked it to favor YouTube music results | from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the YouTube app | is open, even if the user's music preference is set to default to | another music app, like Pandora. | | > Roku says Google has threatened to require Roku to use certain | chip sets or memory cards that would force Roku to increase the | price of its hardware product, which competes directly with | Google's Chromecast. | | That's just straight evil - overriding user preferences to favor | your own products... Some growth PM and/or business head is | trying way too hard to hit their OKRs. I'd be surprised if Google | could defend this in court. | suifbwish wrote: | I read that as "Google has threatened to acquire Roku" | izacus wrote: | Last I checked YouTube requires VP9 support for HDR. Why is | requesting that new devices support the format to avoid | fragmentation a problem? | | Apple also demands certain format support for their video | streams to work (not to mention a browser). | ed25519FUUU wrote: | The keyword is "threaten" | izacus wrote: | Can you explain more? How is "We'll be streaming channels | in VP9 and your client needs to support it to continue | working?" a "threat"? | | Is Apple dropping support for older iMacs / MacBooks / | iPhones also a threat to all the companies using them? | brightball wrote: | The more streaming services appear, the more I like my bundled | cable plan + Tivo. | | Seems like you get a lot of additional headaches after the | initial joy of cord cutting wears off. | rOOb85 wrote: | This is _exactly_ what the cable co 's want. F em. I'll | either pay for the services or pirate the content. I will | _never_ let the cable co 's "win". They are terrible, | horrible, corrupt, money grubbing soulless corporations who | have screwed over the masses for long enough. | 908B64B197 wrote: | > Roku alleges Google has asked it to favor YouTube music | results from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the | YouTube app is open, even if the user's music preference is set | to default to another music app, like Pandora. | | That's the behavior I would expect from a full screen app. ie, | if I issue a command in a full screen app for the command to be | interpreted in the context of that app. | djanogo wrote: | That's not at all how voice assists are meant to work. Voice | icon in cars/remotes are all meant to provide answers or take | commands irrespective of what's happening on that device or | other devices they control. | mupuff1234 wrote: | Quite the opposite, context is a critical aspect voice | assistants currently lack. | 908B64B197 wrote: | In a car sure. On a living room TV? | vineyardmike wrote: | I don't think you can make such a blanket statement. | | I think this behavior is what I would expect (search within | open app first) and when it's not present, it's | frustrating. | egberts1 wrote: | yeah, what's worse about the YouTube crippling of its full- | screen is that it actually DISABLED any captioning. | | Talk about corporate-imposed audism. | pbhjpbhj wrote: | I find FireTV stick (from Amazon) to be applying in this | respect, it doesn't appear to know command that direct them | input to a specific app. When I have Google open and ask it | to search for $search-string it will do it in the Amazon | store context, ie offer to sell me a program rather than find | the string on Google. | | Annoying. It relates to the lack of discoverability in voice | interfaces, there may be an incantation to get the behaviouyr | I want but there's no way within the interface that such | methods is revealed. | gsich wrote: | Make it configurable and everyone is happy. | resizeitplz wrote: | It _is_ configurable. Google is asking Roku to override the | user 's chosen configuration. | pythonaut_16 wrote: | He's clearly suggesting making context aware search an | option. | | "When searching within an app, favor results from that | app" vs "When searching within an app always favor my | default" | Nadya wrote: | >"When searching within an app, favor results from that | app" | | vs | | >"When searching within an app, favor results from a | related app" | | There is a big difference between these two things. | "Youtube" is not the same as "Youtube Music" in the same | way that "Xbox" is not the same as "Xbox Live". | | As p49k explained it - if you were trying to send an | email from YouTube would you expect Gmail to come up or | your preferred email app? What if Gmail was renamed to | "Youtube Mail"? Would that change your expected behavior? | pythonaut_16 wrote: | Sending an email is a different interaction than doing | voice search. | | Sending an email is an explicit intent - open whatever | app I use to send emails. | | Searching is an open query - find the most relevant | results. What results are most relevant is subjective, | hence why you would give the user a choice for what | results to favor. | | The separation between Youtube and Youtube Music is a | technical minutia, they're both Youtube just different | apps. If you want a technical solution, Roku should | probably implement a search API such that doing a voice | search would let the Roku query whatever app is currently | running for results. Then any app can provide more | relevant, context aware results. | Nadya wrote: | >Sending an email is a different interaction than doing | voice search. | | Going from watching videos to playing music is a | different interaction than doing voice search. | | >Sending an email is an explicit intent - open whatever | app I use to send emails. | | Using a global voice _commands_ (not search) has explicit | behavior - use whatever app I have set to default for the | functionality I am requesting. "Play Stairway to Heaven" | should use my default music app. Note that "voice | commands" is different from "voice search" in this | context and is the alleged problem. | | >Searching is an open query - find the most relevant | results. | | If I use Spotify as my default music app it is because I | trust their music search more than YouTube Music. | Otherwise YouTube Music would be my default music app. | | There is also a massive contextual difference between a | global Voice Search (using the Voice search icon on the | Roku remote: it searches Roku) and using the Speech to | Text option that may appear when already searching within | a search field (which uses the search field of the app | itself, in this case: Youtube) | | >The separation between Youtube and Youtube Music is a | technical minutia, they're both Youtube just different | apps. | | Google deciding there is a difference between the two | means that there is a difference between the two for both | a marketing perspective and whatever minor technical | differences there are. If there were no differences there | would not be a YouTube Music app and to pretend otherwise | is disingenuous. | pythonaut_16 wrote: | You're basically making the argument for why this should | be a user preference. | | Do I want the current app I'm using to influence the | result of a voice command or not. | | Unfortunately the line between voice commands and voice | search is often fuzzy. Lines like this: > Roku alleges | Google has asked it to favor YouTube music results from | voice commands made on the Roku remote while the YouTube | app is open make it unclear if it's talking about a | search or a command. | | Ideally Roku would implement a more fine grained API | where a user can set permissions/preferences on an app by | app basis, similar to Android and iOS permissions APIs | and especially how notifications are handled. | | Either way if Roku's allegations definitely don't paint | Google in a good light here. It just seems like there | could be more to this story. | stefan_ wrote: | Maybe, maybe not? If I'm in Google Maps, should Siri offer me | Google^TM-themed recommendations? | ceejayoz wrote: | If I'm actively using Google Maps, I'd _love_ for Siri to | respond to "get directions to McDonalds" within the Google | Maps context instead of opening Apple's. | [deleted] | p49k wrote: | Sure, but that's not what Google is asking of Roku. | 908B64B197 wrote: | It is. | | If their app is open and full screen, search within the | app first. | p49k wrote: | No it isn't. If you have Google maps open and suddenly | decide you want to go to McDonald's, then sure, that | voice command should go to Google Maps. But if you make a | voice command to send an email to someone, it shouldn't | open Gmail instead of your default mail app just because | Google maps is open. | | Similarly, if you're watching a video on YouTube and want | to search for a cat video, sure, the voice command should | search in YouTube. But if you want to listen to music and | have Spotify set as your default music app, it shouldn't | send the request to YouTube Music just because YouTube is | open. | DashAnimal wrote: | But YouTube is a music streaming platform. The most | popular, in fact (no, not YouTube music). I constantly | listen to music across both Spotify and YouTube. YouTube | serves video and doesn't present music in the way we | usually think of it, albums sorted by artist, | chronologically presented... But that isn't really how | the younger gen listens to music. It is a music app and a | common way a lot of people consume their music. | minsc__and__boo wrote: | Google isn't asking Roku to open a separate app, they're | asking the search to be performed in the open app first. | | What the person above you originally said. | 8note wrote: | The distinction is that YouTube and YouTube music are | different apps | izacus wrote: | They're not on TVs. YTM is a section inside YT app on the | TV. | heavyset_go wrote: | I'm using a Chromecast with Google TV, and YouTube and | YouTube Music are separate apps. | tick_tock_tick wrote: | On Roku there is only 1 app. | wiseleo wrote: | "Hey Siri, navigate to ___ using google maps" is how I do | it. :) | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | Siri can't even give me driving directions unless I have | Apple Maps installed... | xuki wrote: | You can say "Hey Siri drive to xyz using Google Maps". | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | Is that new? I swear I googled this so many times and the | consensus was "You have to use Apple Maps with Siri." | | Thank you so much! | fra wrote: | I'm not quite ready to take out the pitchforks... | | > Roku says Google has threatened to require Roku to use | certain chip sets or memory cards that would force Roku to | increase the price of its hardware product, which competes | directly with Google's Chromecast. | | This could simply mean Google is requiring chips with hardware | VP9 support | | > Roku alleges Google has asked it to favor YouTube music | results from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the | YouTube app is open, even if the user's music preference is set | to default to another music app, like Pandora. | | This is both what many users would expect (if I have an app | open, voice search works within that app), and a pretty | reasonable ask for any business (don't show competitor's | offering when searching within my app). | [deleted] | arghwhat wrote: | > This is both what many users would expect (if I have an app | open, voice search works within that app), and a pretty | reasonable ask for any business (don't show competitor's | offering when searching within my app). | | Only if I search using the in-app search feature do I expect | it to be restricted to only that app. | | If I'm watching a YouTube video and ask _my device_ to play | music, I expect Spotify to open as that 's what I use and pay | for. | | The platform should prioritize the user, _not_ the app | developers. | ab_testing wrote: | Agreed. If I am within the YouTube app, I am expecting search | results from YouTube. Showing search results from Pandora is | just tainting those result. | | If I want or search across all apps, I should be able to go | to the Roku home screen and search there . | 015a wrote: | > if I have an app open, voice search works within that app | | This is not how Siri or the Google Assistant works on iOS, | Android, or Apple TV. | khc wrote: | This is how Google Assistant works on Android TV | izacus wrote: | Google Assistant on my Pixel 4 will search in foreground | app if I ask a query so you might not be correct in that | respect. | raisedbyninjas wrote: | Roku does not support multitasking. I would not expect a | voice search to close the app I'm using. If I want to | switch apps to listen to music, I could hit the home | button, then voice search and let music preferences launch | the appropriate app. | agilob wrote: | >This is both what many users would expect | | So if your default search engine in firefox is duckduckgo, | but you're currently on google.com/maps reading reviews of a | car service, firefox should use google for your next search | request? | SR2Z wrote: | This is a bad comparison. There's only ever one voice | search button on the remote, but there are multiple easy- | to-click search bars when you're viewing maps. | | IMO, even if I had Spotify on a Roku, I would be fine with | this change. It's not difficult at all to press the home | button and then the search button to signal you want to | search outside of YouTube. A big chunk of YouTube's utility | is that it has music videos. | dcow wrote: | Shouldn't it be up to Roku, not Google, to decide how | their product experience works? | | LGs TVs have a prominent omni search button. If you're in | the YT app and use the omnisearch it searches across all | content services you have connected. It's an amazingly | useful feature and makes the TV experience actually feel | integrated. First time I've been happy with a "smart" TV | experience. | | I'd say it's a fair comparison. | SR2Z wrote: | It would be up to Roku if Roku were willing to support | Google with resources for developing their YT/YT TV apps. | | They literally have no power beyond acting as a | gatekeeper for their users. Their omnisearch (which was | awful, at least the last time I used it) is a major part | of their strategy to try and guide users towards content | they profit from. | | Given that it's Google's job to guard the UX of their | Roku apps, I think it's 100% reasonable for them to tell | Roku to add HW support for new features and not gimp | search inside the YT app. | mrtranscendence wrote: | > not gimp search inside the YT app. | | I could see this argument if a search for music would | lead to a search for (say) a music video. But the idea, | as I understand it, is that a request for music to be | played would instead be routed through YouTube Music. | Even if I'm in the YouTube app, I'm not going to want my | music search to go through YouTube Music -- I'm not a | subscriber. | SR2Z wrote: | I'm not sure exactly what qualifies a music search as a | music search and not a search for a music video. The | entire point of YT Music on a smart TV is that it's | virtually indistinguishable from the default YT app. | [deleted] | paxys wrote: | I doubt users expect that. Voice assistant search on every | device/platform today is always global. | iforgotpassword wrote: | Agree on the second one, but why tf should Google force them | to support vp9? If they want to save some money there to stay | competitive it's none of Google's business. | cma wrote: | Doesn't it cost Google more in either bandwidth or patent | fees if they don't support VP9? | edoceo wrote: | maybe. and that's Gs problem that they are trying to make | Rs problem. | cma wrote: | Not illegal unless it is monopoly abuse somehow. | fuzzer37 wrote: | Well it is monopoly abuse. | falcolas wrote: | > This is both what many users would expect | | Not when it's not the current behavior, nor behavior present | in any other application. | judge2020 wrote: | If they're talking YouTube TV specifically (the terminology | doesn't make much distinction between YouTube and YTTV, | although the headline makes it seem like 'YouTube' always | means YTTV in this case) they also might be requiring a new | DRM chip for level 1 widevine. | azinman2 wrote: | Not if I have the notion that search from a button on the | remote is universal and I want to be taken directly to that | content elsewhere. That'd be like suggesting Siri should only | fetch content from the active app. It's a signal for ranking, | but not an absolute one. | fra wrote: | That's what they are asking! Take it into account while | ranking, not remove all other results: | | "[...] favor YouTube music results from voice commands made | on the Roku remote while the YouTube app is open" | | Key word is "favor" | jellicle wrote: | Voice commands aren't going to give you an exhaustive | list of possibilities, they're going to play the top | result. | | Q. "Play Diamonds by Rihanna" | | A1. "Playing Diamonds by Rihanna from Youtube Music" | | A2. "Playing Diamonds by Rihanna from Spotify" | | Either A1 or A2 will happen, but not both. There can be | only one. | azinman2 wrote: | You don't always need to have a verb. The way I use my | Apple TV is usually to just say the name of the content | because I want to pick where it comes from. | | But even if you say play, it could still ask you where | from and/or confirm it got the right thing. Roku != | Amazon Echo. | 8note wrote: | If I'm asking it to play music, favouring YouTube music | means playing it from there | kelnos wrote: | Even if it is what most users would expect (I don't agree it | is), that is a product decision that should be entirely under | Roku's control. Google's threat to pull YouTube from their | device is an anti-competitive move. | | If customers do want either behavior, they should be | advocating to Roku for it. Google has no place setting a | requirement here. | reaperducer wrote: | I understand your position on this. But what I don't | understand is what makes Google think it has the right to | demand anything from another company. | impalallama wrote: | > favor Youtube music results | | > user preference set to another music app. | | Entirely irrelevant. | | Youtube Music is not Youtube. Its a rebranded music streaming | service build to compete with Spotify and apple after the | failure of google play. | | Also is the Roku's device search. Which mean it can | functionally search anywhere which is the entire point. | 8note wrote: | YouTube music is a different product from YouTube itself. | | If I said "search wikipedia for thing" | | I'd expect to get wikipedia results back, not YouTube videos | about wikipedia and thing | cptskippy wrote: | > YouTube music is a different product from YouTube itself. | | Sorta not really. On Roku, Google is deprecating all of the | other means of playing content (e.g. Google Play Video) and | funneling everyone to the Youtube App now for everything. | smt88 wrote: | > _This is both what many users would expect (if I have an | app open, voice search works within that app)_ | | No, it's not. Most YouTube users have a different primary | music app. | | Google is trying to artificially force a marriage of YouTube | and YouTube Music because they have utterly failed to do it | in the product experience and user base themselves. | | If I'm watching a random YouTube video and then want to | switch to music, I expect my music app to come up, not | YouTube Music. | qwertox wrote: | So it boils down to the fact that `YouTube Music != | YouTube`. In that case you could be right about the user's | expectation. | | I for one don't use YT Music, but to use YT. Then again I | don't use Pandora or Spotify as well, but do listen to | music on YouTube (non-music). In my case, I'd expect the | search to be executed in the context of YT, but that's what | the defaults are there for. I'd choose YT (non-music) as | default, if that's possible, or YT Music if i'd care. | | Yes, somehow it does make sense that it selects the app | which is set as a default, even if I would expect it to | perform the query in the opened app. | | Can it act upon "Open Song/Performer in Pandora/Spotify"? | What's so hard about it? It all doesn't make sense to me. | | I'd expect it not to query in YT Music but in the app which | is currently open, which is simple YouTube. No, it feels | like Google shouldn't have the right to expect YT Music to | get launched if it is not set as the default app. | spoonjim wrote: | Clearly, users differ on this matter, so vendors should be | able to choose their approach and let users vote with their | wallets, not have everyone's hand forced by Google. | throwaway292893 wrote: | That's where the user preference setting comes in. | | Users voted with their wallet and bought a Roku, then | explicitly defined their preference in the settings. | | Google then says fuck you, no. | FalconSensei wrote: | > No, it's not. Most YouTube users have a different primary | music app. | | Exactly. If I setup my music profile to be Spotify, and I | have a Spotify premium account, I expect my device to play | music on Spotify. Why should it play on Youtube? | mandis wrote: | >If I'm watching a random YouTube video and then want to | switch to music, I expect my music app to come up, not | YouTube Music. | | Umm what? Why is it google's responsibility to ensure their | youtube music video is linked to spotify's audio song | listing? | [deleted] | cptskippy wrote: | As a Roku user who thinks Google takes a pretty hostile | approach to anyone using their App on Roku, I disagree. If | I'm in an App and search, I expect my search to be | localized to that App. | | That being said, f*k Roku and their voice remote. They've | been pushing that crap hard. Showing prompts on screen for | upwards of 30 seconds to push the Mic button. I don't want | my remote to have a microphone or be able to listen to me. | | I replaced my Roku remote last month because the one I had | started having connectivity issues and missing clicks all | of the sudden. The first thing I did with the new remote | was pop it open and rip the microphone off the PCB with a | pair of pliers. | | I really don't want an Android TV or Fire TV, and I'm not | really keen on Apple TV either but Roku is making it really | difficult to stick with them. | Cd00d wrote: | I am genuinely surprised by this. | | I _love_ voice search on Roku. Typing things in with a | d-pad and on-screen keyboard is horrendous. I think it 's | very fast, and I like that it shows me all the ways what | I'm searching for is available. | dylan604 wrote: | >pop it open and rip the microphone off the PCB | | In some not too distant Black Mirror future, that would | cause the remote to no longer function. | MomoXenosaga wrote: | Yeah companies are all pushing their voice control. I'm | never going to talk to a computer until it has full | sentience. | ryandrake wrote: | I just don't get it. All these big companies pouring | oceans of money and research into voice control. What | makes this the holy grail of computing? What customer has | a burning desire to sit there talking to a computer? | | And after all this research, voice control is still | primitive and limited, and its capabilities are | impossible for a user to discover. If I want to search my | E-mail for a message from a colleague about Project Abc, | can I do this through voice control, or do I need to type | into a search box? I could try voice control, and when it | fails because it doesn't know what I want it to do (or it | punts me to a generic web search), now I just wasted my | time and feel silly for talking to a computer that | doesn't understand me. | qwertox wrote: | I'd enjoy a voice control which isn't tied to a device, | but more like an Alexa+Siri+Google Now "in a stick with a | button to initiate listening and a hardware switch to | physically turn the mic off". | | One that understands "Google, set a timer for 5 minutes" | as well as "Siri, remind me to call X tomorrow" and | "Alexa, start Y on the TV in the living room" | ryandrake wrote: | > That being said, f*k Roku and their voice remote. | They've been pushing that crap hard. Showing prompts on | screen for upwards of 30 seconds to push the Mic button. | I don't want my remote to have a microphone or be able to | listen to me. | | This is kind of thread drift, but I really agree with | this. I wish products would stop trying to get me to use | some particular feature. First, they cram it onto every | screen in the application. Then, they make it easy to | accidentally invoke when you didn't want to. Then, they | spam you with notifications saying "PLEASE DON'T YOU WANT | THIS FEATURE?" Then, they silently enable it and make it | opt-out. Product Managers, please just stop this madness. | I don't want your feature. I don't care that your bonus | is tied to its use. I already bought your product, so you | already have my money. But if you keep trying to cram | your feature down my throat, I'm not going to buy your | company's next product. Give it a rest! | MereInterest wrote: | Or whenever you open an application. If I want to check | my email, then I want to check my email. I have something | in mind, and I am trying to figure out what somebody said | to me. That is exactly the wrong time to pop up and ask | if I want to learn about a new feature that was just | added, because of course I don't. That's something for | downtime, not when I'm actively working toward a goal. | dylan604 wrote: | I mean, sure, but how is the app to know your intent when | you have yet to connect your brain interface device? | | Does this happen to you after the first launch of the app | after an update? I find it terribly annoying as well. I | would rather see a "New Feature Tips" or something | similar as an icon notification that I can choose to | review or not. The forced balloons stealing focus | absolutely needs to die in a fire. | Wowfunhappy wrote: | > If I'm in an App and search, I expect my search to be | localized to that App. | | If you're using a fullscreen app on macOS and activate | spotlight, do you expect it to only search that app, or | do you expect it to behave like Spotlight _always_ | behaves and search the entire system? | | Put another way, this depends entirely on how the OS and | UI is set up. | cptskippy wrote: | On Roku if you search in an App it is localized. If you | search on the home screen it is not. I expect voice | search to behave similarly. | bisby wrote: | On Roku, voice search (using the voice search button on | the remote) is always global. Google wants an exception | for youtube. No one else gets this exception. | | Regardless of what you think is a better user experience, | Roku has made a design decision and are sticking to it | and aren't giving Google special treatment, so Google is | threatening to take their ball and leave if they don't | get what they want. | tobr wrote: | > If you're using a fullscreen app on macOS and activate | spotlight, do you expect it to only search that app, or | do you expect it to behave like Spotlight always behaves | and search the entire system? | | To make another analogy: Maybe Roku should ask Google to | make the Chrome address/search bar only show Roku.com | results if you're already on their site. | spockz wrote: | Joking aside, it might actually be a nice feature if you | could use the search bar of your browser to search into | the single site specifically, just like you can have | different search engines already. | r00t4ccess wrote: | You can do that | mulmen wrote: | I purchased a Roku when my previous streaming device | died. I specifically chose the Roku model because it did | _not_ have a voice remote. I have no brand loyalty but I | prefer to buy from a company that does not create their | own content and at this point non-features are as | important as features. | saltedonion wrote: | It doesn't matter what the consumer prefers. This battle | is about the _ability_ to implement a feature, and that | power should reside with the application developer. | | Monopolists can often have batter products as well as | charging monopolistic pricing. | elliekelly wrote: | > This battle is about the _ability_ to implement a | feature, and that power should reside with the | application developer. | | Which begs the question: who, is _the_ developer? I think | the argument can be convincingly made that both Roku | _and_ Google are "the" developer. It seems to be the | fundamental disagreement underlying every modern | accusation of antitrust. | | Trying to think of analogies for this "dual developer" | framework from the analog world and it's difficult to | come up with one that isn't in a heavily regulated | industry. Airplane & engine manufacturers maybe? | Certainly no one would say Rolls Royce is the | "manufacturer" of a plane but I would expect they still | exercise some degree of control over what plane | manufacturers can change and do to the engine. If planes | with Rolls Royce engines started falling out of the sky | it would be bad for business regardless of whether it was | Boeing or Airbus's doing. But the same can also be said | for Boeing and Airbus. Probably more so. | | Regardless, I worry the most recent claims of antitrust | violation aren't about consumer protection (as antitrust | was intended) so much as they're about consumer control. | kelnos wrote: | When it comes to the device's global search feature, Roku | is the developer, period. Google is only pushing this | because they know they have market/end-user leverage, not | because it's inherently better for the user. And even if | it is, that's for Roku's product managers to decide. | | Your airplane engine analogy doesn't really work; Roku | doesn't want to modify the YouTube app; this is purely | Roku's own global search feature. Yes, it will aggregate | results from the YT app, but Roku doesn't want to modify | that data source. Further, the Rolls->Boeing/Airbus | relationship is more like a vendor->purchaser | arrangement, which is nothing like the Roku->Google | relationship here. | mulmen wrote: | My preference with these devices is that instead of | "apps" we have "plugins" which add content catalogs. Then | playing music or video on the Roku (or any device) is a | consistent experience. | cptskippy wrote: | > and that power should reside with the application | developer. | | I guess the question is, who is the developer in this | case? The Youtube App is running on the Roku Platform | accessing the Google Platform. Both Roku and Google are | acting in both roles. | | The Roku Voice Search is weird, it's surfaced via a | button alongside local media controls which are | contextual but Roku appears to want their Search to be | analogous to Siri, Alexa or Google Assistant as a | platform level tool. The volume, and mute keys are the | only other buttons that behave at a platform level. The | Roku Home button is contextual. | | As a user of a STB, if I search (voice or otherwise) I | expect it to be contextualized. If I'm in an App then the | search should be localized, if I'm at the home screen | then I expect it to be global. | verelo wrote: | Just make it a setting? This seems stupid to debate, | let's allow users to choose. | shaneofalltrad wrote: | I agree, it is a simple solution, at least when | considering the best user experience- I remember when | that was an important thing. | qwertox wrote: | Doesn't the setting exist? Isn't the setting the one to | use whatever app has been set as the default music app? | 8ytecoder wrote: | The behaviour I expect is that the voice search is global | except when I specifically go to the search screen of the | app. That's how it works on Apple TV and that's what is | intuitive to me. | coding123 wrote: | Same here - I had to reread the parent comment because I | have a Roku too and that's the behavior so that's what I | expect...? | cptskippy wrote: | That's a reasonable expectation, not having ever used | Apple TV though that isn't mine. Having only ever been on | the Roku platform, my perception is that it's localized. | d1str0 wrote: | As an apple tv user, it has been trained into me that | voice commands are Global unless specifically in the | search field (not just the search screen). I fuck this up | all the time. | | What is naturally intuitive to me is to go to an app and | anywhere in that app have a voice search specific for | that app, as Google is requesting of Roku. | [deleted] | [deleted] | myko wrote: | It sounds like Roku is upset that YouTube is asking them | to prioritize YouTube results in exactly this case. | malandrew wrote: | Voice search is basically like Apple Spotlight. It's | system wide. | | I only expect it to be localized within the app I'm in | when I'm in the search box for that app, in which case | I'm not using voice search, I'm using voice recognition | to fill in the contents of the search bar. | | Outside the context of voice recognition for an input, to | me clicking the voice button on my apple TV is opening | Siri, just like "Ok Google" or "Hey Alexa" | r00t4ccess wrote: | Thats interesting, when i got my first roku with voice | control, the remote had the voice control button where | the play button used to be so i cut it off the remote | with a knife because it was annoying the shit out of me. | dangus wrote: | Hot take: the Apple TV is easily the best device of its | kind on the market and I'm continually confused at why it | doesn't seem to be anywhere close to the most popular | option. | | Every other steaming device I've ever tried is riddled | with ads, dark patterns, and slow slow SLOW performance. | | I can understand the aversion to a $200 device just to | watch some Internet TV but then I watch people making six | figures pretend like a $50 Fire/Roku Stick is the best | way to watch movies on their $2,000 LG OLED. | | If I were buying a steaming device today I'd probably be | evaluating the Apple TV against the Nvidia Shield. | tyingq wrote: | Last I used one, the Apple tv remote control sucks in | comparison to Roku. No tactile directional buttons, I | couldn't get used to the trackpad thing. No mute button. | No "lost remote" button on the console to make the remote | beep. | | Also, I know many will disagree, but...no headphone jack. | I don't like bluetooth earphones. | dangus wrote: | I'm not sure if you're aware, but Apple just last week | updated the remote to address those criticisms. The new | remote is compatible with old Apple TV hardware. | | There are directional buttons, trackpad swipes, and a | classic iPod-like fast forward and rewind touch gesture. | Mute button and TV power buttons now included. | novok wrote: | The new chromecast is pretty good and $50, and until very | recently the ATV was pretty out of date and overpriced. | The chromecast stutters sometimes in the main screen, but | actually playing videos is just fine. | | You can also side load unofficial youtube apps, which are | much better than the actual youtube app on the | chromecast. | | The LG OLED tv os was missing some services, like HBO, | but it stutters less. | | The only thing missing from all of these devices is a | backlit remote. I don't know why they're against the | concept. | [deleted] | slenk wrote: | Unless you are fully in the Apple ecosystem already, it's | not very welcoming. | | Price being one thing but with how Apple recently | demonstrated they can just take away all your movies with | no recourse, I will pass | dangus wrote: | 1. I assume by "not welcoming" you mean "unable to | buy/rent movies from Vudu/Amazon Prime on the box" and | that's a fair criticism. Someone wanting to buy/rent | through third party services will find opening a separate | browser to be annoying, but that leads me to... | | 2. iTunes is part of Movies Anywhere just like all its | competitors. Being "required" to purchase/rent movies | through iTunes isn't really ecosystem lock-in. | | 3. "Taking away your movies with no recourse" is not | unique to Apple's iTunes Movies service. This is a | standard movie industry practice that can affect you | regardless of provider. Using an iTunes competitor does | not remove this flaw. | | Apple offers a way to back up purchases. They never | promised perpetual re-download ability. From their | support site: "The only way to back up your purchased | media is to download your purchases to your computer." | | I would guess that no other content store can promise | anything better than that. Apple didn't make the rules | here, WB/Disney/Universal/Sony did. | tzs wrote: | Does anyone here happen to know what happens if I get a | movie from store X (Apple, Amazon Prime Video, etc) that | works with Movies Anywhere, and so that movie shows up in | my library at all other Movies Anywhere supported stores | that I have accounts on, and then I do something that | gets my account with store X banned? | | I know I lose access on X, but how about on the other | stores? | | Also, how the heck does Movies Anywhere actually work? | Say I buy a movie on iTunes, but then via Movies Anywhere | watch it using the Fandango app on my TV. | | Who pays for the bandwidth for that stream? Does Fandango | just eat it, or behind the scenes does each company keep | track of how much of their bandwidth was used for movies | bought at each other company, and they periodically | settle up for any imbalances? | Mindwipe wrote: | > 2. iTunes is part of Movies Anywhere just like all its | competitors. Being "required" to purchase/rent movies | through iTunes isn't really ecosystem lock-in. | | Movies Anywhere doesn't exist outside of the US fwiw. | | Personally I flat out don't trust Apple on content | censorship, as I think the Apple TV UI is not very good. | kelnos wrote: | > _Unless you are fully in the Apple ecosystem already, | it 's not very welcoming._ | | This is an answer to the question I was about to ask. | Except for a MacBook Air that I used to run Linux on (but | is now gathering dust) and a Mac Mini that I currently | run Linux on, I own no Apple devices. I hear great things | about the Apple TV, but don't really care to buy into | that overall ecosystem to the degree that I assume is | necessary to get full use out of the ATV. It's bad enough | that Google has its fingerprints on so much of what I | have, and I'm actively trying to reduce that, not replace | it with another corporate overlord. | matwood wrote: | > That being said, f*k Roku and their voice remote. | They've been pushing that crap hard. Showing prompts on | screen for upwards of 30 seconds to push the Mic button. | I don't want my remote to have a microphone or be able to | listen to me. | | It sounds like they have been pushing too hard, but | discovery of voice commands is hard. Pushing them is | probably useful for some set of customers. | | For example, I have an ATV. While watching something you | can click the voice button and say something like 'what | did he just say' and it will go back 30 seconds or so, | turn on captions, replay the bit you missed, then turn | captions back off. As a user how would one discover this | amazingly useful feature? I didn't even know it existed | until I happened to hear about it on a podcast. | dylan604 wrote: | A user's manual comes to mind. A website with all of the | hidden UX tips/tricks released by the vendor seems only | natural. It reminds me of "that" burger joint with its | famous unprinted menu. You have to "hear" about it from | someone else rather than "we took the time to develop | this feature, so here's the details on how to use it" vs | "we did this super cool thing for our friends, but you | have to be cool to know about it". | kbenson wrote: | On the one hand, like you I don't really care for voice | commands in a remote. In the other, I _really_ liked (and | miss now that I have an Amazon firestick device) the | built in CEC control of TV volume, and also the headphone | jack. I also liked that it had a bit more weight to it. | It was easier to find in the covers /sheets of my bed | when I would occasionally lose track of it. | Aissen wrote: | It's good to see such optimism. But it's not necessarily | true, see for example the Apple MFi program that requires | custom chips provided only by Apple as way to tax & lock | devices. In the TV/broadcast business Roku is in, it is | unfortunately pretty common for content providers to mandate | DRM X or Y, which is embedded deep into the main SoC, so | you'd have only one or two possible sources. | SirFatty wrote: | I agree, it does seem to make sense... and this isn't just | with YT, it also affects YT TV. On my Smart TV, with a Roku | remote, I don't want to switch out of the current app (YTTV | in my case). | malka wrote: | > This is both what many users would expect | | If I'm watching a video on youtube and ask to play music, no | I do NOT want at all youtube to handle that. | | Youtube music is crap. Google has proven many times that they | are totally unable to manage music. They should stop to try, | because it is utterly embarrassing. | throwawayboise wrote: | > Youtube music is crap | | It's good enough for a lot of people. I pay for YouTube | Premium, so I get YouTube music (formerly Google Play | Music) included, and it works well enough that I'm not | going to pay for a separate music app. | ummonk wrote: | Then you can make YouTube music your preferred music app | in your settings. | xboxnolifes wrote: | Which is fine, _And what user preferences are for_. | cardiffspaceman wrote: | Youtube music was better until several months ago, when | they made some changes that ruined it for me. I haven't | used Youtube for an extended session of watching music | videos since those changes happened. Overall I have | watched many fewer music videos since the change. This is | on Youtube as implemented on Android TV. | | I definitely prefer music videos over plain audio | streams. | sircastor wrote: | YouTube Premium is the only reason I stick with YouTube | Music. I was a Google Play Music user, and that was fine. | Getting both was a boon. I would say though that YouTube | Music has been an overall downgrade. | jwalton wrote: | Google: Look, you can buy a device with less storage, and | store all your MP3s in the cloud! | | Me: This sounds terrible... but ok, let's give it a go. | | Google: Now that you have all your music in the cloud, | wouldn't it be nice if you paid us monthly for access to | a lot more music? | | Me: No. | | Google: I see you switched to another app while watching | a YouTube video. If you paid us extra, you could keep | playing that in the background! | | Me: First, why would I ever want that? It's bad enough | YouTube now keeps playing videos in a little thumbnail | when I try to exit them. Second, why are you charging a | monthly fee for a feature that ought to just come with | your app? | | Google: Hey, how about a free trial of our subscription | service? | | Me: No. | | Google: Hey, how about we ask you every day if you want a | free trial to our subscription service? | | Me: Still no. | | Google: Ok, I tell you what. How about we shut down | Google Play Music, literally the only built in MP3 | player, and then if you want to keep listening to music | on your phone, you pay us monthly? | | Me: Buys an iPhone. | judge2020 wrote: | > Me: First, why would I ever want that? It's bad enough | YouTube now keeps playing videos in a little thumbnail | when I try to exit them. Second, why are you charging a | monthly fee for a feature that ought to just come with | your app? | | It makes sense - Google can't run YouTube without ads. Ad | buyers, which have ads in video form, don't want to run | ads when the user isn't looking at the content nor able | to easily click on their link to convert them to a paying | customer (plus google never gets paid as the user | probably won't switch to the app just to click the ad). | They either do this or ask advertisers to make ads | specifically for audio-only streams (which still makes it | hard to drive conversions), but then they'd have to | charge advertisers for impressions which Google has very | rarely done. | dhimes wrote: | I don't understand why Google, who is apparently competing | with Roku with Chromecast, would try to "help" Roku fix a | worse user experience? My Spidey sense tells me there's more | to it than just trying to fix the Roku UX. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | > a pretty reasonable ask for any business | | seems abusive coming from someone with an extremely dominant | market position in one area. | charwalker wrote: | No. If I'm in YouTube I want Tidal to play music, not their | janky YTM setup that can't give me quality audio even if I | pick the video myself. At least make it a toggle for users to | manage themselves vs hard coding it into the app. | LightG wrote: | I'll take your pitchfork and brandish it at least ... | | >>This could simply mean Google is requiring chips with | hardware VP9 support | | Shouldn't we expect reasonable backward-compatibility? | | Your second point seems valid. | | To be honest though ... youtube is the weak link in most of | my set ups. Can't access ad-based youtube via Sonos (and no, | I won't pay for premium because of how I feel about Google | right now), scrapes here with Roku, etc. | | Google is slowly becoming obsolete in my house. | | n=1 | thehnguy wrote: | Not a good look Google; especially when you've got a great, big | target on your back from the antitrust/anticompetitive hawks. | smolder wrote: | Hawks have great eyesight, and are effective predators. It's | not a good metaphor for the people who punish anticompetitive | behavior. Maybe anti-trust sloths? | myko wrote: | > Roku alleges Google has asked it to favor YouTube music | results from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the | YouTube app is open, even if the user's music preference is set | to default to another music app, like Pandora. | | This seems reasonable to me - it would be super frustrating if | I'm in YouTube, hit search, and Pandora pops up. Like what's | the point of that? | galkk wrote: | > Roku alleges Google has asked it to favor YouTube music | results from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the | YouTube app is open, even if the user's music preference is set | to default to another music app, like Pandora | | This is what my Amazon Echo Show is doing when Youtube is open | on it, and I find it rather logical and convenient. That lets | me search on youtube with my voice. | | disc: Google employee | heavyset_go wrote: | > _disc: Google employee_ | | It's probably not the best idea to be commenting on antitrust | allegations against your employer unless you want your | comment to be read out loud in a deposition. | CodeWriter23 wrote: | IMO Roku should make a rokutube site and wait until Google | decides to abandon ChromeCast and comes crawling back. | annoyingnoob wrote: | Two advertising companies fighting over peanuts. I don't support | either party here. Roku is becoming more useless over time and | that has nothing to do with Google. | annoyingnoob wrote: | It'd be nice if you mentioned why when you downvote. This | really is 2 advertisers fighting over which one gets your | search and where it goes - and both claim they are right and | doing it for their users. Roku has made it pretty clear that | they want to advertise to you but they could care less to make | something that works and does more than spy on you and deliver | ads. My next device won't be from Roku or Google. | VWWHFSfQ wrote: | I got rid of my Roku when they pulled the Spectrum TV app. | the_lonely_road wrote: | This kind of tactic works. I have 3 rokus in a box collecting | dust and two brand new Fire sticks that replaced them. I didn't | want to do this but 85% of my streaming time is spent on | Twitch.tv and I wasn't able to use my Roku's to stream it | anymore. | echelon wrote: | Out of curiosity, who do you watch on Twitch? How do you find | interesting content? | the_lonely_road wrote: | GrandVice8 is 95% of my stream consumption but my followed | list online right now is: | | TimTheTatman DrLupo dogdog DQA_TFT Becca Break TidesofTime | ibiza Kaymind smaceTRON Myles_Away Cheesewiz DeliciousMilkGG | | It depends on how you define interesting content of course. | For me that is "Tactical or strategic games with a | significant enough RNG component to be classified as | 'Controlling the Chaos' (think Poker, not Chess) and which | have a lively leaderboard. I enjoy watching the competition | for Rank #1 and I enjoy competing to see how high I can get. | My current favorite game is Team Fight Tactics (Riot Games | the maker of league of legends auto battler). You can find | the leaderboards here: | https://lolchess.gg/leaderboards?hl=en-US And my all time | highest rank achieved was #540/1,250,000 in North America | (not bad at all for an executive and father of a toddler). | Pretty much all of the guys competing for rank #1 will also | be streamers so finding content is as easy as googling their | name from the leaderboard + twitch. | | If thats not your cup of tea, probably the best way would be | to choose twitch's browse option and just watch the most | popular streamers in each game for a few minutes to see if | you are into their content. Some are informative, some are | looking to appeal to 13 year olds, some are chasing some | goal, etc. | colordrops wrote: | Why is Twitch not on Roku? | driverdan wrote: | Because Amazon is equally anti-competitive and wants people | to use Fire devices. | daemonhunter wrote: | So this is for the YoutubeTV and not the Youtube app right? | kschwab wrote: | Yes, that's correct. Also, separately, Google is sunsetting the | "Google Play Movies & TV app" and folding that into the YouTube | (not YouTubeTV) app. | stephengoodwin wrote: | Welp, I specifically bought a Roku device a few months ago just | to use YouTube. | | I ran into major issues using Fire TV's YouTube app. The app | would fail to get past the initial loading screen and hang | forever. It would typically require 2-3 device restarts to work | again, and even then it would only work temporarily. I tried | completely resetting my Fire TV, relogging in, etc but never | managed to get it to work properly). YouTube is the only app I've | had issues with on Fire TV. | | Google also discontinued YouTube's great web browser experience, | which was almost identical to the app, that you could load in | Fire TV's web browser. | myko wrote: | Nvidia Shield and AppleTV are both quite good and the YouTube | app works great on them | GloriousKoji wrote: | I did the same thing, youtube recently dropped support for the | older AppleTV and I had no interest in shelling out extra money | for 4k or the option to play games i'm never going to play. | | This TV set-top box arms race is so stupid. The smart TV apps | stopped working so I got an AppleTV. That stopped working so I | got a Roku. When that stops working I guess i'll just go the | full PC route with a NUC and a nice interface like Kodi. | morganvachon wrote: | > _Welp, I specifically bought a Roku device a few months ago | just to use YouTube._ | | We have Rokus (a 4K Ultra in the living room and a TCL Roku TV | in the bedroom), as well as a 4K Chromecast, and until we got | the Roku Ultra we had a Nvidia Shield TV. We keep more than one | type of device specifically because it is inevitable that a | provider (Roku, Amazon, Google) will drop a service we enjoy. | This actually happened with the Shield which is why we replaced | it with a Roku; it was no longer working with Emby at all, and | it was flaking out on certain other services. It could have | been just a case of bad hardware but it was flawless for two | years straight until one by one services stopped working on it. | | This is also why I have a Mac, a couple of Windows PCs, a Linux | workstation, and a BSD laptop. When one of the above can't do | something, one of the others can. | aklemm wrote: | I'm just about sick of YouTube and YouTube TV not playing well | with whatever device I've decided on. First it was YouTube and | the Firestick, now it's YouTube TV and Roku. | | Frankly, how did Google end up with a good TV service? I'd rather | not be relying on Google for TV streaming. | jeffbee wrote: | > Frankly, how did Google end up with a good TV service? | | Just peeling off this part of your comment. It seems like it | would have been the natural course of events after they had to | develop IPTV services for Google Fiber customers. | sniperjzp wrote: | First, you can play YouTube without any problem on Firestick, | they made the change 2 years ago. Second, you should give the | new Chromecast device a try, it's far much better than Roku. | Third, Google is asking Roku to support VP9, which is a much | superior video coding format, I don't see any issue with this | ask. | young_unixer wrote: | Do they sell chromecasts with dedicated remote controllers? | azurezyq wrote: | https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv?hl | =... | aklemm wrote: | Moving from device to device IS the problem. | efdee wrote: | Either YouTube requires VP9 and then everybody has to | implement it, or it allows other codecs and leaves Roku | alone. | | What's the point of singling them out? | SR2Z wrote: | Because VP9 is much, much cheaper for: | | - Google, who doesn't have to pay royalties | | - Google and consumers, who can enjoy better compression | and lower bandwidth | | - Consumers, who can enjoy a much more mainstream video | encoding format in not just YT but pretty much every app. | | Google doesn't want to write off 45% of the set-top market | right away, but at the same time it's 100% in the right to | demand Roku support modern royalty-free codecs going | forward. | | Roku fights pretty much everybody nowadays and as someone | who's been dealing with full-screen ads and missing apps on | my $1000 TV, I have no sympathy for Roku whining about | needing to support a modern codec. | rOOb85 wrote: | None of that is Roku's problem. It's googles problem. | Google is trying to make it rokus problem. | larntz wrote: | Also if the answer is try using another Google | product(chromecast) to get a good experience that kind of | validates Roku's complaint. | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: | No thanks. I'll stick with a computer running a web browser | connected to the TV and a wireless keyboard because I'm sick | of having to give a shit which devices are supported by which | services. | johncena33 wrote: | > First it was YouTube and the Firestick | | The whole spat started because Amazon removed Chromecast | devices from their retail platform. | throwaway9_3 wrote: | This wouldn't be the first time Google uses their market power to | gain an unfair advantage in the TV space. | | On the TV Device Maker side they don't allow manufacturers to use | alternatives to Android TV (such as FireTV) or they threaten to | kick them out of Android Mobile. See | https://www.protocol.com/google-android-amazon-fire-tv | ericra wrote: | I have always used a Roku for TV streaming, but things like this | are making it more difficult. | | Something similar happened with Amazon and the Twitch app for | Roku. Amazon obviously wants you to use a Fire product to access | Twitch, and they completely removed support for the Twitch app | for Roku. Even the unofficial Twitch app shut down shortly after | this, leaving no reasonable way to access Twitch content from a | Roku. | | If the Youtube app and available alternatives get removed as | well, I'll basically be forced into another device since Twitch | and Youtube offer a large percentage of the content I watch. | | I can only hope that some future legislation or anti-trust | lawsuit makes it more difficult for these companies to force you | into buying their specific hardware to access these services, but | I am not hopeful. | mey wrote: | I replaced my roku with an nvidia shield over the twitch issue. | enragedcacti wrote: | Twitch on Roku is really frustrating. The unofficial app worked | perfectly for me and then the dev faced legal action from | Amazon. One thing I have found is that using the "Roku Stream | Tester" dev tool you can push a twitch stream to your TV to | play it. | | You can use this site to get the .m3u8 URL for the stream at | whatever res you want: https://pwn.sh/tools/getstream.html | | Then use this tool with your Roku in dev mode: | http://devtools.web.roku.com/stream_tester/html/ | | This is a giant pain in the ass obviously but it does work if | you just want to use it occasionally. The Stream Tester works | through a REST API so theoretically someone could write a | browser plugin or app to automate all of this. | | edit: a fun side affect of this is that the stream plays better | than it ever did in the official twitch app or even on my | Non-4k fire TV. 60fps is really smooth whereas on the FireTV or | the Twitch app for Roku it would hitch and stutter occasionally | beastman82 wrote: | I can't recommend the nvidia shield highly enough as an | alternative to Roku | bobsmooth wrote: | And it's powerful enough to be an emulation machine. | awb wrote: | Surprising with so many live TV competitors in a similar price | range to YouTubeTV like Hulu and Fubo that are also on Roku. | jrochkind1 wrote: | > such as being asked to favor Google products in Roku search | results. | | Anyone else find it alarming that _google_ has no problem with | strong-arming partners into prefering their search results? | | Kinda makes you wonder about what determines Google's own search | results, right? | | Does Google really want us wondering that? | StevePerkins wrote: | Ehh... I would wager on Roku being more dug-in here. For them, | control over their hardware is an existential concern. For | Google, streaming television is one of their many dalliances that | may or not still be active 5 years from now. | | Every television that I've bought over the past 5-10 years has | Roku built into it. I know that some people prefer to plug in | Amazon devices instead, and that's perfectly fine (not that | Amazon is any "less evil" of a company than Google or Roku). But | I use Roku's platform because it's usually the hardware default, | and I like the UI well enough. | | I'm already pissed that Google has raised their prices to the | point where I no longer save any money compared to what I used to | pay for cable+internet. And then dropped sports coverage for my | local baseball team anyway. If YouTube TV disappears from Roku's | platform, then I'll just sign up for Hulu or whatever 5 minutes | later. Or fuck it, I might just go back to cable. These over-the- | top, "skinny bundles" have been a bait and switch in practice. | ta9999 wrote: | Who the hell would pay google for youtube? Anything worth | watching is on patreon so you can just watch it there if you want | to pay for something without dealing with all of Google's crap. | wmf wrote: | Roku is similarly evil towards smaller apps, like demanding a cut | of app revenue after the app gets a large user base. | ipaddr wrote: | Would love to read more information on this. | | Private tv channels are constantly under attack. | jlund-molfese wrote: | What percentage does Roku take? I wasn't aware that they were | in the same rent-seeking game as the other app stores. They do | talk about their "Platform Revenue," but it seems that's mostly | generated from ads. | wmf wrote: | AFAIK they're trying to take 30% of revenue from every app, | even from ads that are internal to the app. | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-18/nbc- | threa... https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/rokus-recent-fight- | with-fox-... | dubcanada wrote: | I'm surprised this is the first time someone tried to push their | weight and try and get what they want. | | But it does seem to be a baseless claim, we have no idea actually | what was asked. I think it's a little too early to jump onboard | any side. | twobitshifter wrote: | Roku is not a completely innocent content portal. Roku notably | sells buttons on its remotes tied to services you may not even | use. A consumer friendly remote would have configurable | buttons, so they're not against favoriting certain apps over | others. Within Roku itself you'll get sidebar ads for certain | video services. Roku is happy to prioritize your app but only | if you pay for it. | intergalplan wrote: | Interestingly, there are 3rd-party remotes that contain | _different_ "suggested" channels. I've got one with six of | those buttons, which is actually kinda nice because 5/6 are | channels I use. | | I wouldn't be surprised if there exist programmable remotes | that allow custom launchers, at least for the set of all | channels Roku has ever had on their own buttons (they must be | giving each app they put on there a unique, or at least | rarely-recycled, code, since remotes with different promoted | channels on them _do_ work as expected on Rokus other than | the one they came with). Though, yes, it would be nice if | Roku let the user program those buttons on stock remotes. | criddell wrote: | It's not the first time. It took a while for HBO Max to show up | on Roku because both sides were playing hardball. | MuffinFlavored wrote: | This isn't that big of a deal to me because I could still use the | YouTube TV app from my iPhone and then just "cast" it to the Roku | which is acting as a "cast client". | | And even then, that's only at my friend's house where their TV is | too old to have built in "smart TV / cast to me" functionality. | | Roku is dope but this might not be as big of a deal as it seems. | taurath wrote: | Roku makes insane demands of its video providers. So does every | large platform company. Google is awful too, but this is like the | pot calling the kettle black. | adrr wrote: | They make all their money as being a service provider. That's | why they require content providers to use their platform and to | rev share subscription and purchases made on the Roku platform. | They aren't a hardware company. | jpollock wrote: | Roku wants to be an app store, and it wants a cut of both the | subscription fee and the ad inventory: | | "Roku's standard terms for partner channels include 20% of | subscription fees and 30% of ad inventory" | | For services that bundle other people's content that's likely to | be a problem (see Spotify and Apple). | | https://popculture.com/streaming/news/roku-founder-reveals-w... | post_break wrote: | If this is true, could you imagine if Google tried to pull this | on Apple? Making YouTube music show up when using the siri | remote. These allegations are serious, and if Roku isn't lying | it's straight up crazy. | deckard1 wrote: | Apple and Google already have a symbiotic anti-competitive | relationship on the iPhone worth billions of dollars. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/technology/apple-google-s... | | Only reason Google can't bully Apple is because Apple is too | big. | coldacid wrote: | Apple would laugh and tell Google to fuck off, right before | removing every app for iOS that even contacts any Google | service. They're about the only company out there with the | clout and cash to give Google the finger without having to go | to the courts (legal and/or public opinion) to do it. | izacus wrote: | Apple does no such thing in case of search in Safari, so why | are you making this stuff up? | | Not too mention Apple puts the same kind of requirements on | developers and apps on their own tvOS platform - including UX | behaviours and format support. | tinus_hn wrote: | Apple didn't become big by behaving like a child, nor by | being a pushover. Typically they create a reasonable plan and | go through with it. | | They know Google needs Apple as much as Apple needs Google, | and of course the opposite statement is the same. | | Apple showed their teeth when Google tried these tricks with | their Maps app. Google isn't really in a position to make | tough demands. | vineyardmike wrote: | They could never pull this on Apple. Apple has too much user | base support leverage and is too willing to expunge apps that | don't play along. | enos_feedler wrote: | Serious they may be, but it's just a business deal. They can | take it or leave it. | cirenehc wrote: | > Roku alleges Google has asked it to favor YouTube music results | from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the YouTube app | is open, even if the user's music preference is set to default to | another music app, like Pandora. | | How else do you use voice search for a music video on Youtube? If | I open youtube and do a voice search. I'm expecting the search to | be constrained to the app. | pkulak wrote: | It sounds to me like they want the YouTube Music app to open | when you search for a song on the YouTube app. Those are two | entirely different apps, with different content, experiences, | etc. It just so happens that Google named them the same, | probably so they could more easily force integrations like | this. | p_j_w wrote: | At least on my Nvidia shield, this is not the case. YouTube | Music is part of the YouTube app. | djrogers wrote: | This sounds like the user is in Youtube, then says 'Play some | Beyonce'. In this scenario, I'd expect some Lemonade from my | default music app, not Youtube... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-26 23:01 UTC)